Allowed

M/S Innovision Limited v. M/S Jayem Warehousing Private Limited

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2023CMP/160/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench of the High Court of Karnataka entertained a civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator. The court allowed the petition and appointed Sri. Sarvodaya Shettigar as the sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. Sarvodaya Shettigar (retired District Judge) as the sole arbitrator.

M/S Innovision Limited Vs M/S Jayem Warehousing Private Limited — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:24451 CMP No. 160 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 160 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. INNOVISION LIMITED, PLOT NO.251, IST FLOOR, UDHYOG VIHAR, PHASE IV, GURUGRAM - 122 015, HARYANA. ALSO AT LEVEL 4, A WING, DYNASTY BUSINESS PARK, ANDERI KURLA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 059, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY S.C.HARISHWAR.

¶8

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NACHAPPA A.K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LAKSHA KALAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

M/S. JAYEM WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO.7, ROAD NO.10, EXPORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARK, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066, KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY MR. MUNISH KUMAR.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(RESPPONDENT SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:24451 CMP No. 160 of 2022

¶16

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO (A) APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE EXISTING DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES HEREIN IN TERMS OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED CLAUSE 14 OF THE AGREEMENT IN ANNEXURE-A. (B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE PETITION. (C) GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶20

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties of the Agreement dated 08.08.2016 at Annexure-A.

¶21

The parties herein entered into an agreement dated 08.08.2016 wherein the petitioner offered to provide logistic services to the respondent. There is an arbitration clause contained in Clause No.14 to resolve the disputes or differences arising out of a contract by referring them for arbitration to a sole arbitrator.

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24451 CMP No. 160 of 2022

¶23

Though, notice is served on the respondent, there is

¶24

no appearance for the respondent. It is stated in the writ petition that a legal notice invoking the arbitration clause was sent on 05.12.2019 to the respondent, nominating a learned counsel to be appointed as a sole arbitrator. The respondent was called upon to accept the nomination and come forward for arbitration. However, there has been no response from the respondent.

¶25

When this Court observed that the agreement is not in the original, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that IA No.1/2023 has been filed by the petitioner for dispensation of production of the original agreement, since, the original is said to be in the possession of the respondent.

¶26

Accepting the submission of the learned counsel for

¶27

the petitioner, this Court proceeds to pass the following order:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(a) The petition is allowed appointing Sri. Sarvodaya Shettigar, retired District Judge, as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent and conduct proceeding at the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:24451 CMP No. 160 of 2022

¶32

Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.

¶33

(b) All contentions inter se parties are left open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings.

¶34

(c) The office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and to Sri. Sarvodaya Shettigar, retired District Judge, as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012.

¶35

In view of the disposal of the main civil miscellaneous petition, I.A.No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

CT: BHK

¶38

M/S Innovision Limited v. M/S Jayem Warehousing Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Innovision Limited v. M/S Jayem Warehousing Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Madesha Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt. Shrimati Dharmapal Shetty Vs the Commissioner

Smt Prema Vs Smt . Jaya

M/S. N. N. Agencies Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Gopal S Vs the Commissioner

Social Amenities Association Vs Chief Commissioner